Albert Mohler, the Christian Right commentator I quoted the other day, isn't happy about the latest book by Jimmy Carter: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values www.AlbertMohler.com 11/07/05
Jimmy Carter makes one central argument in this new book, and that is that America (indeed civilization itself) is under attack by a sinister force. In effect, he argues that a new specter now haunts civilization - the specter of Christian fundamentalism.
When I read that paragraph, I immediately went to Amazon and did a One-Click order for the book.
The Christian Right decided back when Carter was president that he was jahiliyya.
And they haven't changed their minds since. There's a sad irony in this, because Carter's outspoken religious faith made "born-again" Christian beliefs more familiar than ever to mainstream Christians.
This paragraph in Mohler's hostile review of Carter's book is entertaining. Apparently, he's trying to accuse Carter of vile hypocrisy. But he gets so wrapped up in his variations on "right" and "wrong" that it hardly makes any sense:
Most interestingly, Mr. Carter argues that fundamentalists err when they "draw clear distinctions between themselves, as true believers, and others, convinced that they are right and anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil." The most amazing aspect of that assertion is Mr. Carter's own moralism, both as president and as America's globe-trotting ex-president. Even in Our Endangered Values, Mr. Carter continues the pattern of arguing that others are wrong when they assert that he is wrong. But, according to his own emphatic assertion and self-analysis, he is right and others are simply wrong. One gains the quick impression that they are mostly wrong because they consider Mr. Carter to be wrong.
Here Mohler gives us a somewhat more coherent criticism, one that reflects the Christian Right's victim posture:
As [Carter] sees it, America is being ripped apart by the fundamentalists who push their concerns about abortion, marriage, homosexuality, and other issues in the public square. Since these conservative Christians are driven by their own Christian convictions, Mr. Carter argues that their favored positions represent a violation of one of his most cherished values - the separation of church and state.
The slight-of-hand trick here (or maybe it's slight-of-word) is that neither Carter nor anyone else objects to fundis expressing their opinions in public; they use the vague phrase "the public square" to suggest that's what villainous opponents like Jimmy Carter are implying. But the Christian Right isn't just talking about their values of conduct; they want to use the government to enforce their own standards on issues like abortion in ways for which there is no good medical or social justification. No one is trying to ban the Christian Right from opposing abortion on moral grounds. But pro-choice advocates want that moral choice to be left with the woman of whose body the fetus is a biological part.
I should say that a lot of people, including me, do object to the anti-abortion and other groups spreading deliberate medical misinformation about abortions, homosexuality and condoms. If they run afoul of the laws against quack medicine or medical malpractice in doing so, I'm not likely to be upset about that.
I also look forward to Mohler's jerimiad denouncing the IRS' naked assault on religious freedom.
Mohler uses another stock Christian Right refrain: the enemy is applying their own religious values to public policy but want to deny us the ability to do so:
Readers of Mr. Carter's new book must be forgiven for thinking that religious beliefs are fairly applied to public policy when the beliefs and policies are those favored by Mr. Carter, but not when the beliefs and policies are those favored by conservatives.
This is a stock refrain. Whine, really. And it is very often carried over into the paranoid style of argument. For instance, it's a common Christian Right position that banning school-sponosred prayer is actually imposing a religion. Because, you see, "secular humanism" is also a religion. And not allowing school-sponsoroed prayer is "secular humanist" position. So not having prayer is actually imposing the religion of secular humanism.
Another favorite variation of this argument is, the Constituion establishes freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But if I'm not free to decide to practice no religion, then I don't have religious freedom. Even in Saint Paul's theology in the New Testament, individuals are free to reject God if they choose. I don't understand in either the political or theological sense that we can have freedom "of" religion without also having the option to have no religion at all.
Check out the rest of it. Mohler charges that Carter's reading of the Scriptures is "facile, simplistic, and intellectually dishonest". Also reckless. And Jesus favored capital punishment. Why, that Carter is so far out he favors "women as pastors"!!
I would think Carter's publishers might want to use some of Mohler's article in their advertising for the new book. I'll reserve judgment until I actually read it. But things like the following sound like positive advertising to me! (Keep in mind that the Christian Right likes to identify its own political positions with "conservative Christians", many of whom reject the Christian Right's politics.)
Nevertheless, in this new book, Mr. Carter delivers a broadside attack on conservative Christians, the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, and those who believe that abortion, homosexuality, secularism, and a host of other issues represent clear and present challenges to the witness of the church. ...
Mr. Carter's moderately liberal theology (more liberal than moderate or more moderate than liberal, depending on his various statements) puts him at odds with the conservative direction of the Southern Baptist Convention and with the biblical convictions held by millions of American evangelicals. Mr. Carter has chosen to make this a public issue by writing and releasing this book. This was his decision.
Our Endangered Values is not a call for discussion or dialogue. It is not an exercise in seeking understanding. Instead, this book is a political and theological call to arms. Nevertheless, it does serve to illustrate the chasm that now grows ever larger between conservative Christians and those who would offer a more "moderate" understanding of the Christian faith. President Carter and those he opposes in this book agree on one thing - our values are endangered. We just disagree about what those values are and how they are endangered. That's no small disagreement.
I imagine other Christian Right takes on Carter's book will be fairly similar. Their range of argumentation tends to be pretty small: the jahiliyya writer is a hypocrite; he's trying to pick on us pore persecuted Christian white folks; his theology is rotten; he's not a real Christian anyway; he bites the heads off small puppies as a hobby.
Okay, okay, that last one is actually what I say about Dick Cheney. But you get the idea.
I'm already thinking about who on my Christmas list gets a Carter book.
